data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2daba/2daba356942095ceafc6fda44b6cea77b999214f" alt="Image"
(that's the extremely relevant Annie Liebovitz on our cover)
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
Can I compromise by watching Tucker Carlson on "Dancing With the Stars"?Wesley wrote:Please go back to watching reality television and washed up stars and do not post about the politics of your nation anymore. Trust us, it is for the best. Who wants to think about Bush and war when you can discuss the merits of putting Mark Hamill and Leonard Nimoy on the same Surreal Life? Isn't that more fun?
They're ultimately trying to get the magazine into peoples' hands and sell more ads. You know that, Bob.mcnichol wrote:I'm disappointed though if journalistic integrity has come down to "What do people want to see" as opposed to "What do people need to know."
Stop making me cry, what with your logic and realism. Can't I just enjoy my warm bath of idealism?kbadr wrote:They're ultimately trying to get the magazine into peoples' hands and sell more ads. You know that, Bob.
Capitalist media = report whatever's popular so people buy things
Government controlled media = report whatever you want people to think is popular so you can hide the truth.
Either way, intelligent citizens get screwed. Sadly, our capitalist society seems to be rather well-tied to the people in control. So it's a double-edged dildo.
Overly simplified and crass, sure. But then again, so's American politics.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
But the news is enough to make you cry.. I was upset yesterday when I read the story on Salon on the mother who lost her son. And there are other news that just enrages you.mcnichol wrote:There's no liberal or conversative bias in the media these days. It's a bias towards the dumb, the easy, the simple...